A re we ready to

engage communities
in hu manitarian
programming?
A participatory video evaluation
review of the Global Framework
for Climate Services (GFCS)
programme in Tanzania and Malawi

j u ly 2 0 1 9
Pre pare d by Mi k i Tsukamoto and Fe rnan da Baumh ar dt

Th e views an d opinions expressed in this ar ticle are th ose of th e auth ors an d do

n ot n ecessarily reflec t th e off icial policy or position of th e auth ors organizations.
 In times of increasing discussions on the importance of community

In tro du ct io n engagement in humanitarian programming, it’s equally importantly to

debate what level of engagement we are aiming at, and notably ready for.
A high level of community engagement entails far more than dialogue.
It needs to include community participation and community ownership.
This means not only collecting data from the communities, but engaging
communities by supporting their participation in the full programme cycle
from beginning to end. The ultimate purpose of community engagement
should go beyond providing them with a voice, having consultations,
and providing them with timely information and feedback opportunities
for accountability purposes. Communities should increasingly sit at the
decision-making tables, co-lead clusters and co-design humanitarian
preparedness and response interventions. Are our mind-sets, structures
and programmes ready for this?

“People themselves are the most important resource for

their own progress, which can only be sustained through
their own leadership and ownership of the process.”
IFRC Strategy 2020, p. 23. Go to: if rc.org/Global/Publications/general/strategy-2020.pdf

Over the past decades, the International Federation of Red Cross and
Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) has been using multiple participatory
methods and approaches to engage communities to map needs and to
identify vulnerabilities, capacities and potential solutions. In line with
this approach, and following up on the participatory video of the GFCS
programme “Connecting the Dots” undertaken in 2014, the IFRC piloted
a Participatory Video Evaluation (PVE) in December 2016 in Tanzania and
Malawi for the Global Framework for Climate Services (GFCS) Programme.
The PVE was to complement the final evaluation to be undertaken by the
GFCS programme. It was planned with the intention of closing the loop
between communities’ perspectives and programming design, and at
the same time, enable communities themselves to video document and
transmit their feedback and recommendations to decision makers with
minimum interference and intermediation.

Video can be a powerful communication tool as it combines images and

sounds. It conveys and legitimates communities’ messages and realities as
audiovisual content is transmitted directly from the emitters to the receivers.
It enables the audience to see and hear directly from the communities
their side of the story, and helps bring the viewer into the realities the
communities face on a day-to-day basis. Moreover, our current times of
“leaving no one behind” calls for a more inclusive approach to ensure that
all voices are represented and brought to the forefront of organizational
policy and practice. In this PVE, we have gone beyond simply using video as
a tool to showcase stories. We facilitated an evaluation process that applied
community-led video to strengthen participation, ownership and community
interest in the programme.

2
 Participatory Video (PV) methodology has been explored for decades in
“This initiative gave an development work and is far more than creating video products. It is a process
opportunity for communities to that strengthens social transformation. As described by Gumucio in his
be part of an evaluation article The New Communicator (1998), “the process of communication with
and tell how the project has communities and by the communities is far more important than the products,

benefited them.”
Chance Muwama, Nsanje District Off icer,
GFCS Project Field Coordinator at Malawi Red Cross Society
it is a communication and participation process that activates social change”.
Therefore, this community communications approach can serve as an
innovative evaluation method to not only collect and share qualitative feedback
to all relevant stakeholders but more importantly, to generate community
reflection and discussion that can be tangibilized in their own videos.

In this participatory video evaluation for Tanzania and Malawi, the

participatory video method was adapted to integrate localised evaluation
criteria where communities dove deeper into analytical thinking so
that they could look closely, individually and collectively, on how the
interventions impacted their daily lives. How was it before? What has
changed? What is missing? What can be improved? What are the
recommendations for the next phase moving forward?

The different angles and analyses discussed were then expressed in the form
of storytelling filmed in a collective video production approach. Indeed the
PVE was designed to walk bolder steps. We risked taking them and found
it important to share our learnings to inspire not only the expansion of a
people-centered humanitarian response, but mostly, to help build the long
road to people-led humanitarian action.

“The main goal of the GFCS project has been to bring together the
interface of users of climate information and the producers of climate
information, to be able to enable the communities at the grass root level,
to demand for climate services and advisories, to enable them to make
informed decisions about their day-to-day livelihood activities.”
Renatus Mkaruka, Disaster Preparedness Manager and
GFCS Coordinator at the Tanzania Red Cross Society

The IFRC works in coordination with other major international players

through the GFCS programme, to strengthen the resilience of the most
vulnerable communities in Malawi and Tanzania to weather and climate-
related events. In the GFCS 2013-2016 workplan, IFRC activities focused on
the following outcomes:

1. Improved awareness and capacities of sectors (food security, health, Disaster

Risk Reduction) to integrate climate-related issues.
2. Strengthened capacity of intermediate and local institutions, including health
and food security workers, to link climate information into action.
3. Targeted households and communities are able to demand and use climate
services for the management of climate risks at household levels.
4. Collection and integration of learning from the programme and effective
communication of this to stakeholders.

3
co n t ext

2 PV E s,
2 c o u n t r i e s,
2 different
c o n t e x t s,
2 communities
Tanzania Malawi
Location Kiteto district, Tanzania Nsanje district, Malawi

Common hazard Drought Floods

Selected community for PVE Ndaleta community Bitilinyu community

Total population 3,473 4,140

Composition of the community Livestock keepers (Maasai), Farmers Farmers (agro-pastoralists)

Who we worked with Elderly, Women, Men and Youth Elderly, Women, Men and Youth

4
the Pve pro c ess
an d met ho d
A walk through THE PROCESS

PVE preparations MSC Story Creation Participatory Video Community Video PVE team reflection DISSEMINATION Influence at the
(remote/onsite) Using OECD/DAC Screening and and learning AND ADVOCACY local/international
Criteria Validation level

Remote • Community • Community peer- • Presentation • Debrief after • 3 international • Used by National
Society and
• Desk review group work to-peer video of localized each country videos (Tanzania, participating
• Discussions with training community video evaluation Malawi and Multi- communities to discuss
relevant IFRC/ - Participatory by community to Country) programme.
National Society timeline, • Community peers • Developing a • In Malawi and
focal point - Identif ication/ f ilming of MSC Lessons Learned • Videos shared Tanzania, the PVE
• Selection of creation of MSC stories and • Handover “Talk Show” video through was used to introduce
community stories using the recommendations of localized evaluation and the project to other
communities
OECD/DAC criteria using second most community participatory video
Onsite - Voting and voted MSC story video to National networks as well • PVE shared at the
• Onsite random ranking of stories Society and the as social media Multi-hazard Early
Warning Conference
represenative • Participatory community outlets in Cancun, Mexico-
sampling editing with May 2017
• Field Logistics representatives • PVE shared at the UN
• Brief f rom f rom the Conference “Reaching
local National community the Most Vulnerable
Society branch/ and Exposed
community leader Communities” held in
Geneva, Switzerland -
May 2017
• PVE submission
created, accepted
and presented at AEA
Conference “From
Learning to Action”
in Washington, D.C -
November 2017
• The PVE was
presented at a Climate
Change meeting
with 330 attendees
(goverment, donors and
partners) - Nov 2018

5
 Evaluation and participatory video were two techniques combined together

Metho do lo gy for this PVE. Highly engaging participatory video methods were combined
with evaluative techniques adapted for the field in order to receive
feedback and recommendations from the communities. Most Significant
Change was adapted and applied, as it “...contributes to evaluation because
it provides data on impact and outcomes that can be used to help assess the
performance of the program as a whole. Essentially, the process involves the
collection of significant change (SC) stories emanating from the field level, and
the systematic selection of the most significant of these stories by panels of
designated stakeholders or staff.” (Davies & Dart, 2005, Guide to MSC, p. 8)

Further to the MSC stories, second ranked stories were also used in this
evaluation to gather key community recommendations.

The team aimed at using methods that would not only collect qualitative
data against the OECD/DAC criteria and related questions posed, but which
would also contribute towards community reflection and discussion, allow
for peer-to-peer consensus building and strengthen the understanding and
the links of the communities to the programme interventions being made
on the ground. Video as a medium provided them with the outlet to tell and
capture their story, and the subtitling of their local language videos have
allowed for their voices to be amplified even further. As storytelling, in its
various forms has been used by communities throughout time, it is also a
practice that is familiar to them.

PV and MSC methods have both been experimented and documented and
PV has been successfully used in the past by IFRC for community-based
climate change and disaster preparedness programmes.

For this PVE, the team’s aim was to empower the communities that
benefited from GFCS programme in Malawi and Tanzania to identify,
highlight, video-document and report in their own way and perspective the
following points:

1. Their current knowledge of local climate change and weather hazard

risks and vulnerabilities;
2. Their simple practical examples (Most Significant Change stories)
of response, including early warning system, livelihood adaptation
and potential use of information received for better preparation and
management of climate risks at household levels;
3. Any existing gaps and potential local solutions and recommendations
to address them;
4. Lessons learned and recommendations.

The evaluation was designed with the vision of how can we best engage
and capture feedback from the communities on the GFCS programme
using participatory evaluative methods adapted for the community. At the
same time, efforts were also made to build capacity at the field level for both
National Society staff and community representatives accompanying and/or
participating in this evaluation.

6
 Wil Fyn
VOICE S FROM TH E
commu n ity
fo es
“Now rains are erratic. There is hot r “I received the information from radio. s
sun all over. A lot of crops are drying I also received the information from

Ch
d
by the sun. People are starving with phones. I received some information

Ny

ak
hunger because of lack of water due to from megaphones which were going

irenda

a l a mb a
lack of rains. Because of the coming of around spreading the message on
Red Cross to train us in ways of new climate change. Some of the message
methods in agriculture, people are now we received from the Red Cross team
able to produce better yields. We are through meetings. Some of us were
thanking the Red Cross and that they sharing the message amongst ourselves
must continue training us.” and that one could tell his or her friend
that the climate has changed this year.”

Zhu Ole
w n d
a i
“About the relevance of the project,

m
w

am
it has enabled us villagers, through

u
Mp
Tanzania Red Cross Society to

a
understand the effects of climate

O le n g u
hamba
change for the side of livestock. Due to
limited rains and reduced vegetation
there is a need to allocate grazing land.
For example if I have 50 acres, I will use

di
20 to 25 for food production and the
remaining 20 to 25 for grazing.”
Asi
ya
L
“With the information I received “We are now more knowledgeable on

w
al
from the Red Cross, I went to train agriculture. We are planting good seeds

u
my relatives on how the climate is and improved farming. We have put
changing. The information pleased down water-saving irrigation systems.
my relatives and all of them have We cultivate with water terraces built in
migrated to this upper land. So these our farm. We educate our children and
are the benefits which I have received have better economies after adopting
from the Red Cross.” the climate change advice. Now our
children are educated in good schools
that before we could not afford.”

Click on images to IFRC PMER You Tube Playlist

view each video >>

7
LE SSONS LEARNED fro m
the Gro u n d
“ I see the importance of “ As we trouble-shoot key words
“ Think of everything
working at the regional level multiple challenges, we
in terms of peer-to-peer must have a fluid dialogue
related to PV process: Flexibility
decision making, engaging
interactions and learning f rom with the team. This is key
and ownership. ” Respect community’s daily routines
each other. ” for a sucessful project. ”
Buy In
Collaboration at all levels
PVE Talk Show: Lessons learned from Building Trust
the participatory video evaluation in
Tanzania and Malawi - CLICK TO VIEW VIDEO Teamwork
“ The PVEs complemented the Respect
f inal evaluation report - the
quality of the f inal report was Listen
increased with the PVE. It was
Dialogue
effective to the documentation of
the programme. ” Engagement
Ownership

“ I really saw the value of

integrating the OECD/DAC
criteria. Sharing their stories
in that manner helped
communities make the link
between what they were
doing on the ground and the
GFCS programme. ”
John Thomas Kinyagu, Tanzania Red Cross Society | Fernanda Baumhardt, IFRC PV Consultant
Miki Tsukamoto, IFRC Geneva | December 2016

“ In programming we want to hear the
voice of the community. We don’t only
want to design programmes for the
community, but we want to design with
the communities. The use of participatory
video with evaluation would be an
interesting way to spark that. ”
“ When we walk in the community
with all participatory video
cameras and equipment, we
never know how it will turn out.
Trust is key to build community
engagement and therefor develop
a participatory video process.”
“One important lesson learned
and recommendation: when
working on bottom up processes
is to be flexible with putting the
planning into practice. We must
validate the schedule of activities
with the communities themselves
and adjust according to the local
routines and reality. It must be
participatory from the beginning.”

8
 How ca n we sh o rte n th e d istan c e
for reflect io n
an d dis cu ssio n
between th e co m m un i ti e s i n to all the
l ayer s i nvo lvi n g pro g ra m m i n g?

5 layers between the communities

and the Donors/governments/partners:

Donors/Governments/Partners

IFRC Global Representation

IFRC Regional Representation

National Society Country Office

National Society Branch Office

Communities
9
 Th e Cyc le o f
Empowermen t

Co-design
Co-implement
Co-mentor
COLLABORATE

Humanity

Impartiality

Neutrality

Independence

Voluntary Service

Unity
Universality
Empowerment should be a cyclical process.
The community can empower donors/partners/
governments, as much as these entities can
empower the community itself.

Within this cycle, learning should be

continuous f rom all parties involved
throughout the cycle, which would allow for an
environment suitable for true:

Co-design—co-implementation-co-mentoring
= COLLABORATION

If legitimate collaboration is achieved

throughout the programme/project cycle,
then engagement f rom all stakeholders could
allow for the further integration of community
voices throughout the programme/project
cycle f rom beginning to end, “…leaving
nobody behind,” allowing for equal status,
responsibilities and duties amongst all parties
within this cycle of empowerment.

10
 Thank you for joining our journey through this

refl ection s q u est io n s PVE experience in Tanzania and Malawi.

To wrap up, instead of offering any conclusion, we are

proposing questions to help us all - facilitators and readers -
to further reflect.

Feel f ree to read and digest them at your own pace and
time. You can also decide if better go through them
individually or as a team.

Would communities’ increased involvement

make a difference in the design and the
Ar e we r eady to en g ag e co m munities
implementation of programmes? in hu m an itar ian pr o g r am min g ?
What are the opportunities and barriers -institutional,
geographical, f inancial, human, political and
technological – that need to be considered?

What kind of tools and processes are needed to

overcome barriers and seize opportunities?

What kind of tools and processes are needed to highly

engage communities and ensure their interest?

Are participation and ownership intertwined?

Can there be legitimate participation without
some degree of ownership?

Are there mechanisms, tools and capacities in

place at the f ield level, to support community
decision-making processes?

Is there space in humanitarian programming

for communities to voice their opinions and
recommendations?

Do organizations have an obligation to strengthen

the leadership and communication skills and
capacities of the communities they serve so that
they are better able to participate and express their
own needs in decision making fora?

Do you think participatory methods could be

used as a process to bridge communities and the
programmes implemented on the ground?

How can you maintain sustainability and interest

of all relevant stakeholders in this process?

11
a bout the auto rs
an d final c redits
Photos:
Fernanda Baumhardt
John Thomas Kinyagu

Layout design:
Vivian Melchior

Participatory Video Evaluation

Community Members:

Tanzania:
Obedi Ngoitiko
Ayazi Juma
Ayazi Lwavu
Daniel Mollel
Tatu Hasani
Mariamu Bahero
Veronika Kornelio
Fatuma Iddi
Amina Athumani
Rebeka Kalebi
Elia Pingwa
Mariamu Hamisi
Kitimanga Matepet
Mariamu Omari
Olendimama Olengudi

Malawi:
Lackel Malope
Winford Nyirenda
Fyness Chakalamba
Jonas Mlumbe
Zhuwawu Mphamba
Magret Mthepheya
Wenord Rapozo
Patrick Dalesi
Chilima Velenado
Miki Tsukamoto is currently the Coordinator for Fernanda Baumhardt is an expert in Participatory Chifundo Petro
Monitoring and Evaluation at IFRC Geneva’s Policy, Video and Communication with Communities with Judith Zeka
Linesi Fraction
Strategy and Knowledge Department. She has field experience in +30 countries on humanitarian Rose Gundete
Mphatso Geofry
over 15 years of experience in PMER, including action, disaster preparedness and response. Her Soflet Machesco
Lucy Patrick
in participatory methods and approaches with BA is in Social Communications and Journalism Felix Round
communities; and over 21 years of humanitarian and MsC in Environment Resources Management. With thanks to:
• Bitilinyu and Ndeleta Communities
experience, gained through her work in a variety of Contributes to the academic world as a guest • Volunteers of Tanzania Red Cross Society
agencies and sectors, including the IFRC, UNHCR, lecturer in Participatory Video at CERAH Geneva’s • Volunteers of Malawi Red Cross Society
• Tanzania Red Cross Society
the International Labour Organization and The Master in Humanitarian Action. She acts as an • Malawi Red Cross Society
• IFRC Africa Regional Office
Hunger Project. She is a Japanese national and independent consultant for the humanitarian • IFRC Geneva Risk and Vulnerability

holds a Graduate Certificate in Evidence Based sector and also as a member of NORCAP’s CwC/ Facilitators:

Humanitarian Assistance from Tuft University’s Humanitarian Communications standby roster as Fernanda Baumhardt
Participatory Video Expert Consultant
Friedman School of Nutrition and Policy and an MA well as CDAC pool of experts. In the past 12 years Proplaneta.com

from Georgetown University’s School of Foreign has collaborated with IFRC, OCHA, WFP, IOM and Miki Tsukamoto
Coordinator, Monitoring and Evaluation
Service in Latin American Studies. UN Women in multiple countries. Has begun her PMER IFRC Geneva
career in the media sector in 1998 with Bloomberg Producer and Editor
Fernanda Baumhardt
Television in São Paulo, Brazil then spent 7 years at
Post-Production Consultant
Turner Broadcasting Systems and CNN Digital in São Alessandra Victoria
Paulo, London and Los Angeles offices. Fernanda Additional Cameras
Fernanda Baumdardt
lives in Geneva area, her home base and practices John Thomas Kyniagu
daily meditation for world peace. Still Photos
Fernanda Baumhardt
John Thomas Kyniagu
Khamar Kshoro

Music
Allan Phillips

Translation and Transcription

Wilson Dakamau
Rashid Mohamed Itungi
Sauli Giliard

12